SAF Forum Itaka Sustainability

Transcription

1 Initiatie Towards sustainable Kerosene for Aiation SAF Forum Sustainability Xaier Dommange, Airbus Group Innoations October 2014 ITAKAwill linksupply and demand by establishing a relationship under guaranteed conditions between feedstock grower, biofuel producer, distributor and airlines. 21

2 Content Sustainability Vs High Volume capacity Measuring sustainability in SEIA: Socio-Enironmental Impact Assessment Delia Dimitriu 2

3 Topic: Looking at sustainable alternatie fuel for long term Technology Any drop in, yet Economics focus on fuels from For transport # 30 yrs Enironment terrestrial plants Background/forecasts: Increase of human pressure Hardening of sustainabilityrequirements 23

4 Making sustainable alternatie fuels at large: 2 scenarios High Volume capacity Sustainable High Volume capacity Sustainable High Vl Volume capacity Sustainable High Volume capacity Sustainable 24

5 Enironment: Sustainable? Sustainable No Food Vs Fuel => from production leel to field leel => good lands are for food No LUC => same leel of GHG absorption => no carbon wells (like forests) No iluc => same needs coered => target lands with minimal natural productions High ihvolume capacity Sustainable In future High Volume capacity Sustainable High Volume capacity Sustainable 25

6 Sustainability first: the options HV S HV S HV S What areas? => MECE inentory of possible areas X style Actually, in future X X Ground Agricultural lands Good Used Not used X (yet!) Aquatic Forest ish X Poor Dry Degraded Sky Urban areas X Desert ish 26

7 Interest of sustainability in the long term «Issues»: High dependency on weather Farmer learning cure OUT OF ATMOSPHERE Sustainable approach from the start should be the common point to all future alternatie Agricultural l AQUATIC fuel ldeelopments ATMOSPHERE lands reas Urban a ts Deser Make sure you are targetting the fuel options that gather the most assets in terms of: More Lasting mature solutions, long term opportunity & risk, potential return on inestment oer deployment inestment. More disruptie Hard to make More Sustainable?? Sustainable Area sizes are not representatie of the actual related land type surfaces Don t look at the products, look at the makers Yes, if sustainable approach from the beginning => is first of its kind but should not be the last 27

8 Measuring sustainability in Pathway maturity FRL Feedstock Oil Oil recoery production conersion Logistics Flight Deeloped by CAAFI FSRL 1 st TRL 2 nd TRL Feedstock & Technology maturity IRL FRL: Fuel Readiness Leel; FSRL: FeedStock Readiness Leel; TRL: Technology Readiness Leel; IRL: Integration Readiness Leel; PML: Project Maturity Leel. Enironmental maturity LCA RL Economic maturity Econo RL Deeloped by Project maturity PML 28

9 Technology: Integration readiness leel Score out of 9 Integrates feedstock and processes Based on CAAFI indicators IRL = (FSRL + 1 st TRL + 2 nd TRL) / 3 For Gate Reiew 2: FSRL = 7 Critics: do not reflect the integration itself (olume in deployment) (cf difficulties) TRL 1 = 9 (no technology lock; capacity to crush any rise in camelina seed production) Need to include assessments of: Agricultural protocol mastering Regulation appropriateness TRL 2 = 9 (no technology lock; capacity to conert any rise in camelina oil production) Hence: IRL = ( ) / 3 = 8 For GR2, IRL = 8 29

10 Enironmental readiness leel Score out of 9 Assesses the pathway enironmental Metric established at GR1, seems still accurate at GR2: 0: GHG emissions higher than fossil jet A-1 1: GHG emissions similar to fossil jet A1 2: GHG emission reduction from 0 to 15% compared to fossil jeta1 3: GHG emission reduction from 16 to 30% 4: GHG emission reduction from 31 to 45% 5: GHG emission reduction from 46 to 60% 6: GHG emission i reduction higher h than 60% +1 if satisfying LUC +1 if satisfying iluc +1 if other LCA aspects are satisfying (biodiersity, eutrophication, ) Hence: LCA RL = = 8 Critics: should include social aspects Validated by RSB Need to ensure: Methodology tracking Transparency of results Assessment repetitieness Validated by model Validated by EPFL Under assessment by Airbus Group For GR2, LCA RL =

11 Economic Readiness Leel Score out of 9 Based on estimations of the biofuel cost against jet fuel price. 0: more expensie by a factor 4 or oer 1: from 3 to 4 times as expensie 2: from 2 to 3 times as expensie 3: from 1.5 to 2 times as expensie 4: from 1 to 1.5 as expensie 5: similar or cheaper +1 if error margin of biofuel cost is between 11 and 20% +2 if error margin is below 10% After consultation of alue chain members After consultation of alue chain members +1 if the pathway enters a general subention scheme Valorized within Common +1 if the pathway is recognized by a specific subention or mandate scheme to encourage its Agricultural promotion Policy Hence: Econo RL = = Need to be more precise / more traceable For GR2, Econo RL =

12 Project maturity for Calculating PML: PML = (IRL + LCA RL + Econo RL) / 3 = ( ) / 3 = 6 In the frame of, after GR2, PML is worth 6 SYSTEM TO BE ENRICHED Update at Gate Reiew 3 Collaboration with CoreJet Fuel 122

13 Appendixes 13 2

14 Conclusions on progress Maximize feedstock production Improe conersion process from oil to jet Logistics International policies Gate Reiew 1 March 2013 Gate Reiew 2 May 2014 Focus on crop land extension Possibility to conert Used Cooking Oil into jet fuel Check compatibility of new fuels with infrastructures EU CAP and US RFS under seemingly faorable changes Focus on agricultural protocol Deelop biofuel test methodology Explore possibilities to reduce aromatic content CAP and RFS are faorable to camelina as a rotation crop for biojet Fuel Readiness Leel 7 7 Gap to FRL 8 Produce 1000 t of camelina oil Conert this oil into 720 t of pure biojet Produce 380 t of camelina oil Conert 1000 t of camelina oil into 720 t of pure biojet Project Maturity Leel 4 / 9 6 / 9 Economics No conersion toward a single estimate between stakeholders Camelina jet cost = 3 to 4 times fossil jet s price. Model under deelopment to predict biojet price GHG Estimated saings between 49 and 80% Measured saings of 62%. Focus on smart iluc management method and LCA Social Improement of farmers incomes was forecasted Forecasted model alidated on some farms: +40 /ha of profit (see in appendixes) 14 2

15 Sourcing camelina oil in 2012/2013 : plan & deiations (2/2) Root causes for deiation from plan B: - Value chain issues: requirements for traceability & sustainability preented significant amounts of feedstock from being accepted for process and sourced from outside. Considered sde ed Adantages da ages Issues (main cause in bold) Conclusion uso alternaties Camelina oil USA GPOE Camelina oil USA SO EPA documentation in place Proider known and accepted by Neste Could be able to reach EU RED (RSB) Volume aailable small (around 200 t of oil) Crushing is a problem because of the high quality requirements of the oil EPA documentation in place Volume aailable small at the beginning of the year (UCO issue). Later olume aailable = 0 No go No go UCO Some supplier achieing a better quality could exist and so allow the use Camelina oil Russia JatroFuels (Casusoil) Technical Corn Oil (non edible) Volume aailable Quality approed by NESTE Compliance with EU RED (ISCC) possible Compliance with EPA possible according to supplier Product quite aailable in US Feedstock approed by Neste since June 2013 EPA requirements uncertain Non compliance with Neste s s quality specs /approal Approal of supplier by Neste not possible Documents for sustainability compliance (ISCC and EPA) not demonstrated by the supplier Refused by SkyNRG sustainability Board Neste highlighted lack of aailability Refused by SkyNRG sustainability Board No go No go Discarded in summer (*) 15 2

16 Opportunities to improe ASTM (extract from D3.1 by SkyNRG) See appendix for more details 16 2

17 Camelina oil cost distribution Camelina oil production cost breakdown not taking into consideration personnel and other indirect costs 17 2

18 Appendix - Validation of camelina as a better option than fallow in a rotation crop system with barley, by CCE. Comparing 2 farmer reenues based on 1 alternation of barley crop and fallow and 2 barley crop and camelina crop. Source: CCE 18 2